Slashdot Mirror
Michigan First With A Law That Could Outlaw VPNs
zaren writes "Holy frell, Taco, we're gonna be criminals! I was checking out Freedom to Tinker after reading the posting about that multi-state anti-VPN-style legislation, and I saw a new posting that says that Michigan has ALREADY passed such legislation, and it goes into effect on MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003 . Guess I better tighten down the base station and batten down the hatches..."
Michigan residents being arrested on april fools' day because of a law that's a joke.
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
(b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service. What were legislators smoking when they wrote that clause? That's so ridiculously overbroad that it could even be interpreted to make it illegal to call someone from a payphone without telling them where you are.
Repeal the DMCA!
someone would get a nice little pile of evidence against these lawmakers and policy setters to prove that they are doing exactly the opposite of what they preach. For these anti-vpn people as well as the **AA's... Wouldnt it be marvelous just to get the specs on the no-vpn guy's "special connection" from his house in the hills to the office. oh crap, its a vpn connection... oooops... Imagine Hillary Rosen with an armload of bootleg cd's. I wonder if she has a burner in her pc. or 4, because its a 40x, and we know thats worth atleast 4 drives because its fast....
sorry... this is just another in the long line of wtf laws and policies that I see being proliferated...
[ot.. well, more ot]I hope there isnt another troll storm.. I see the beginings of one[/ot]
I'm a little tea pot.
WTF?! I can't rip CDs to MP3s anymore and now it's illegal to use a VPN?
Honestly, I'm starting to feel guilty as soon as I start using a PC. I must be breaking some law as soon as I sit down.
It's about time for the otherwise useless ACLU to start some legal action. Finally, they'll have something to pursue that's worthy of their time.
Michigan doesn't seem to have made it to the 21st century yet.
this would also make calling cards illegal, since every time I get a call from one it comes from texas, not nevada where the call originates.
THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
If I put three people behind a NAT'd firewall, the provider sees it as one paying customer and two thieves.
This doesn't only concern end users. This concerns any organisation that obtains an address range for a fee and use NAT to connect their network, including many ISPs.
This might be the end of NAT. Good riddance and welcome IPv6!
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
Finally Microsoft windows is illegal!!!!
Any web browser can be used to access a proxy server making All web browsers illegal in Michigan. Since IE is so integrated into the software (that it can't possibly be removed), it makes all windows OS's illegal!
Of course this applies to all linux browsers, but we can remove those.
Ahh yes, the crap is piling up, and it aint the dairy cows.
THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
Hey, we didn't know Blob Slob had that e-mail address, and we sure as hell didn't mean to make him that penis enlargement offer!
Another step in the right direction.(not)
Every IP packet I pass through my ISP contains a source and destination IP address.
What else do they need to know?
"Your honour, at what layer of the OSI Network Layer model is this bill to be enforced?"
"Er, case dismissed."
(Yes I did RTFA)
This law has not one but two offensive clauses-
1(b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service.
1 (c) To receive, disrupt, decrypt, transmit, retransmit, acquire, intercept, or facilitate the receipt, disruption, decryption, transmission, retransmission, acquisition, or interception of any telecommunications service without the express authority or actual consent of the telecommunications service provider.
While 1(b) is probably the most obnoxious clause, 1(c) is not far behind... it makes it a "felony" to eg. hook two televisions on single cable connection and even make it a felony offense to put NAT boxen !! At our dorm, for World cup we put a computer with TV tuner card connected to cable connection and then used it to stream the transmission for people to watch in their rooms... HELL now we'll be criminals (and that too 'felony'!!) for that...
Fuck.
Who said "America- land of free" must now be turning in graves.
- mritunjai
This post about legislation in various states to illegalize using multiple computers on a a 'Net connection without express permission from a service provider sounds like a combination of the mindless anti-piracy drivel we've been reading, and a bit of "legislation-for-sale" by various legislators not so scrupulous about campaign contributions... This really gets my ire, because not only is this technically misguided, it's so obviously legislation to, at a minimum, protect a business model!
It strikes me that the reason why this legislation appears in the states that it does is perhaps a particular ISP has something to gain by it. Close that loop, and you'll probably find who lobbied for it.
To defeat this kind of legislation sounds like it'll need some kind of federal-level class action movement against it. Perhaps something along the lines of a significant breach-of-contract in bad faith with your ISP, or the fact that the legislation attempts to explicitly modify a contract(s) in-force presently, which may be a no-no for states.
One thing that might wake up ISP's to this, is if people started requesting copies of their contracts in writing to be snail mailed to them as proof of that contract-in-place before the law comes into effect. I would think in most states you have a legal right to a printed copy of a contract?
This gets to the fundamental question of who owns the customer-end of the IP pipe into your home, and corporate America wants as much control over that as they can. To us geeks, it is readily apparent to us that once the wire gets to us, we ought to be able to hook up the coffee machine or the computer to it. This makes me wonder of how this set of legislation violates any anonimity statues, or guarantees of privacy businesses have offered on the web. If you can't VPN, or go through a proxy or firewall, and your IP address is your machine in some way, shape, or form, those sites cannot in any way state the information they collect is anonymous.
This is ridiculous. In a broad sense, this would outlaw an PPP connection that assigns an ISP customer a different IP address with every session. Not only that but the nature of such legislation would outlaw virtual domains using Apache and could be applied to the way the Internet has come to work in a limited IP space. I mean, in order to find out who is who on a shared IP web server, you would have to have access to the configuration files.
With so many domains sharing IP addresses or having IP addresses provided by big companies such as HE there is an amount of obfuscation built in to the DNS system to allow flexibility on the host side. Can't they get busy with spam legislation instead?
(b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service.
Apparently it is legal to have a concealed weapon, but having a concealed cell phone or disabling caller ID violates the law.
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
What, were they thinking???
The answer, of course, is "no!"
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
http://www.ntlworld.com/legals/user-policy.htm
18. Use of Virtual Private Network (VPN)
As stated above, the ntl Internet and/or Interactive Services are for residential use only and we do not support the use of VPN. If we find you are using VPN via the ntl IP network we may instruct you to stop using it and you must comply with this request. This is in order to prevent problems to ntl (eg network performance) and other Internet u FO.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
"Hi, this is Mike. You remember me from yesterday? Yeah, well, I was wondering if I could "facilitate the recipt" of another couple of packets today. I was kinda thinking about maybe checking the weather."
...
"Kid, I'm giving you express authority to send you all the packets you want. Get the hell off the support line."
"Hi, this is Bob. I was wondering if I could decrypt something...I was thinking about buying a CD for my sister using https. Also, I..."
"Blanket approval. Go for it."
May we never see th
This is easy for me to write, I'm in Europe so can't participate; however, there have been calls for geeks to politicise, to make their voices heard...
If every university and college student turned him/her self into the police on Monday morning for being in violation of this new law, the system would choke. It'd get a hell of a lot of media attention too. Something has to be done... these laws, largely unenforceable, continue to be passed... each one errodes the rights of ordinary people...
I simply can't fathom how a law this monomentally stupid has been passed... but it's got to be challenged. A mass protest would certainly expedite it and might prevent similar laws from being passed in other states where they're being considered.
Say, you had a family. Wife, four kids, and a couple of mutts.. etc. You have a computer you do a lot of serious work on, a computer you tinker around with, your kids each have one. There may be another in the den you use to play games on and maybe use in conjunction with the TV and stereo.
But you have one internet connection.
By use of Network Address Translation (NAT), you can set your system up so that all the computers can access the internet through a router/switch. You can dedicate a clunker machine for this, or just use a router/switch designed for this.
The ISP gives you so much bandwidth for so much money. If only one machine is using the connection, it gets all the bandwidth. If more machines start using it, the switch shares the available bandwidth amongst the machines requesting it.
Using NAT, your machines can be configured so they can talk to each other privately without involving the internet - even though they are communicating through the network card - because the switch can be configured to keep local chatter off the net. Certain IP numbers do not route, such as the 10.xxx.xxx.xxx subnet. So you have an entire class A subnet to play around with for your home or business. Everybody has it. All yours. It won't route. But if you want the internet, the switch will recognize a routable number and gate you onto your internet connection, and provide the necessary address translation so the connection is routed between the appropriate machines.
Personally, I can not determine any difference between whether or not multiple *machines* are using the bandwidth, or multiple instances of browser windows on one machine is using it, as far a paying for bandwidth delivered goes. What puzzles me is how anyone could consider a NAT box illegal, as every packet going through still has completely valid source and destination fields - it won't route through your ISP without them. At the ISP level, its completely traceable as to who's getting what.
So I am puzzled.. I am completely failing to see the logic of this legislation. It makes just about as much sense to me as some sort of legislation mandating each child gets his own mailbox in front of the house.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Here I sit using at least two computers simultaneously for the simple reason that they both do different jobs. In my house there are four devices capable of being connected to my network hub and that in turn connects to the cable modem I have. Given that it is just me using all these at the same time why would it make sense to charge me for each computer? There's just me. Now, if I set up a dial up so that other users can run off my cable then yes that is bad and a law that said I could not resell the service I have bought would be perfectly reasonable, but this is my house, my connection and they are my machines. I pay for a fat(ish) pipe to the outside world. Does the water company charge me more because I have more sinks than my next door neighbour? They may charge me more if I use more water but having more sinks doesn't matter, it is the flow that matters. Same should be true with a network. I am happy to have a capped bandwidth (500Kbs) because I am paying a flat rate for that. However, the four computers I have can't get more data through than one on its own could so what is the problem? What happens if I want to play around with a beowulf cluster? Are they going to outlaw clusters unless you can get some special exemption? You certainly wouldn't want to have to get an IP address for every machine in a big cluster. Oh, and what about the company providing the connection, are they going to ensure that if I have to pay for individual connections for each machine they will still protect me from all the twits who probe my system on a daily basis and do a better job than I can myself with my gateway? This bill is only going to benefit the money grabbing service providers and those idiots who love to try to root machines.
:-)
IMHO of course
Back in the bad old days (prior to Jan. 1, 1984), you could only get a phone from AT&T. They owned Western Electric, which was the only manufacturer of telephone equipment. They owned the lines (there were some exceptions where GTE had a local market). If you wanted a phone, you had to accept the whole package.
You had to lease your phones from them -- you couldn't buy them. You had to pay extra for DTMF (Touch-Tone [TM]). Your monthly bill was based on the base rate times the number of phones plus the base local call charge plus the incredibly overpriced long distance calls, which themselves worked on a minimum of three minutes and charges were rounded up to the next whole minute.
They stifled technology much more so than IBM, even when it hurt them. It became cheaper and easier for them to have customers using DTMF, but because people wanted it rather than the damned dialing wheels, they kept on charging premiums, which meant they had to keep those old number nine crossbars in the COs rather than (or in addition to) the electronic switches.
The whole idea of ringer equivalence existed so they could shoot a charge down your line and know how many phones you had. If it didn't match, they'd come over for a "technical visit". If they saw signs that you had more than the paid/claimed number of phones, they'd either hardwire the phone in the jack or remove other jacks. You had to let them; it was their equipment.
People used to huddle around a phone to listen and talk at the same time because Ma Bell wanted you to pay twice as much to have two people at home talk to a caller at the same time.
ISPs are trying this game, requiring you to use their hardware, accept their version of "normal use", and pay per computer rather than for the amount of data transfer so they can claim "unlimited" or "flat-rate service. It may be illegal based on the same decision which finally allowed people to buy their own phones, have as many as they wanted and use them as they saw fit.
This needs to be stopped quickly. Lawyers need to compare these laws to the Orders from Judge Harold Greene which stopped AT&T doing this, and have this bad legislation removed. You people in Michigan need to get started!
woof.
Perhaps this would interest you.
Today the RIAA announced it was pushing for legislation that made the use of chairs illegal
"Pirates sit down to make these illegal copies that are destroying society" said an RIAA spokesperson "This is all about making it uncomfortable for the pirates"
When questioned as to the many valid uses of chairs the spokesperson replied "Sure this will have a minor effect on some people, but isn't that worth it to protect the American way of life and ensure the success of democracy that rides on the music and movie industries, what are you some sort of Communist or one of the Al Q'uada people.... guards arrest this person"
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
you see, when you are buying access, they are billing for you for it but not really ready to let you use all the bandwith they sold you, it's like an all-you-can-eat resteurant that will kick you out after you've eaten 6 pizzas. and if you are crypting the transfers they can't just be bad boys on the block and eavesdrop and then say that you are bad warezor shuu shuu go away.
now, i'm perfectly happy with this kind of arrangment at my current place of living (student foundation provided) and the net access they give (100mbit, minimal fee, and no, it's not really paid from outrageous university fees, because here we pay around 120e per year to attend to it) and the fact that i can't use all the bandwith from it all the time if i don't wanna get disconnected. but i perfectly knew this when i signed up, and i would be fiercely pissed off if i paid good $$$ for connection and didn't get what i paid for and especially if i was told that crypting the transfers was a no-no(you could just as well be mailing all your mail in transparent envelopes.. which the postal office might actually like?).
the law sounds just as ridiculous as the law that was in greek to forbid videogames.. all the bad things it would outlaw are things that should be already covered by other laws(fraud & etc).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Now, what is an "unlawful telecommunications access device"? That is answered under 750.219a which is entitled:
Section 219 defines an unlawful device as:
I read this to mean to hijack someone else's "telecommunication device".
If you read the section further, this applies to illegal cable descramblers and stuff like that.
I think we can all agree that FRAUD is bad.
The
There may be a get-out here - if the parent post is giving the exact wording, it is the origin or destination of the *service*, not the telecommunication itself that can't be concealed. This means you can conceal your cell phone, but you can't conceal which teleco you bought it from.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
1) phone legislator
2) ask him his exact location
3) if he tells you, say thanks and hang up. Wait 5 minutes go back to step 1)
4) if he hangs up without telling you, get him locked up for concealing the destination of the telecommunication.
Repeat until all the legislators are locked up, then elect some people who are less dumb.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Every IP packet I pass through my ISP contains a source and destination IP address.
;-)
More importantly, define "source" and "destination".
This just means that, from now on, I "intend" every packet going through my NAT box to actually go to or come from that box. The fact that my NAT box has to talk to the outside world to serve that data doesn't matter, since the ISP can fully well see that part of the transaction.
Or, to put it another way...
I consider my ISP as nothing more than the "communication service provider" to my NAT box. I provide the service from my NAT box to my real PCs (did my ISP come in and lay CAT5 between them, or provide the power or the signal flowing over that CAT5?), and I can see the source and destination of everything on the internal LAN just fine. So no problem exists.
Somehow, though, I doubt the law will see it that clearly, and this crap will end up effectively yet another random-and-ubiquitously-enforceable-at-will weapon in the government's arsenal of ways to screw otherwise law-abiding citizens.
Damn, and I can't even blame Bush or Ashcroft for this one.
You seem to be confusing a private network using NAT and a Virtual Private Network.
As the VPN Information on the World Wide Web puts it (bold is my emphasis on certain parts):
Literally, a VPN is two remote networks treating one another like they're one big LAN and routing communications (encrypted) across another network, usually The Internet.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Specifically:
(1) A person shall not assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise an unlawful telecommunications access device or assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise a telecommunications device intending to use those devices or to allow the devices to be used to do any of the following or knowing or having reason to know that the devices are intended to be used to do any of the following:
Establishes that owning, creating, or publishing information on how to create a device that violates any of the following items is a felony. The item in question is:
(a) Obtain or attempt to obtain a telecommunications service with the intent to avoid or aid or abet or cause another person to avoid any lawful charge for the telecommunications service in violation of section 219a.
Yet the bill does not put a limit on what telecommunications services are allowed to charge for. Therefore, if you're local ISP decided to charge for say each HTTP request, they could sue Microsoft for Internet Explorer's ability to download an unlimited number of webpages (since it is avoiding any lawful charge for telecommunications service).
A half-way decent lawyer should have a field day with this bill...
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
I fail to see anything in this amendment that applies to VPNs. It appears to be specifically designed to target phone phreaking. It's all about screwing with telecoms services. VPNs don't do that.
They don't obtain telecoms services without intent to pay (1a), they don't conceal the origin or destination of the traffic (1b), and they don't intercept, disrupt, re-transmit, or otherwise fuck with your, or anyone else's, service (1c).
Unless you've deliberately cracked your ISP in order to run your VPN, you've not fallen foul of this law.
Get some perspective.
[Interestingly, this does appear to make IP address spoofing illegal - but I consider that to be a good thing.]
Now that media covergence is drastically changing the landscape, turning voice data into just another type of packet on the network, the phone companies are surely in a tizzy. The whole concept of a "long distance call" is undergoing a complete rennaissance, since one can now pass voice data over the internet, completely bypassing the traditional call switching mechanism. One could conceivably setup a couple of PSTN gateways and pass calls end-to-end without any long distance charges.
Consider if you are an organisation (commercial or otherwise) who has offices in different places. You want to link your offices up either by direct leased lines or some kind of VPN over the public internet. For your telephones you get a modern integrated PBX. Which is hooked up to some phone lines and the network. Any interoffice calls go over the WAN, incomming calls might also wind up being sent to a different office and outgoing calls will use phone lines in the office nearest their destination.
There's at least one thing they'll have to reconcile: It's not considered a "long distance" service if I interact with a remote server from my local ISP connection, but somehow, it magically turns into a "long distance" issue if voice data is involved. What do you bet that they propose slapping a charge on ALL interstate internet traffic
International as well as interstate. Anyway it's quite often the case that telephone call charges have little relation to the route the call takes,
All the problems you list are due to human stupidity. Even SARS. The patient zero was somewhere in China and the local politicians failed to take action in fear of falling into disfavour. More concentrated stupidity can be found in the form of Kim Jong Il, GWB, Chirac and other politicians worldwide.
Now, there is an excellent record of 6000 years of human stupidity that we call history. In fact, human stupidity most likely extends even beyond the written records and if we go really far back in time we arrive at the point when "human race" was just a little more advanced kind of an ape. And we definitely can agree that by human standards apes are pretty dim, aren't they?
So, in conclusion, most of the recent events can be blamed on stupidity and since the massive human stupidity in the past has not brought on the end of the world ago it won't do so this time either. So, don't worry.
The owls are not what they seem
You got it. You need to read this legislation in the light of all the other legislation out there, signed into law or proposed. A Police State needs for everyone to be a criminal on paper, to have that potential,to be able to use that against them. Look at oregons proposed policial demonstration law. Walk in the street in a demonstration, you are facing 25 years to life. Use a normal router, with how it normally works, you are a criminal. Go into patriot act 1 and now 2, which they are migrating to different other bills to get it passed. Misdemeanors can be classed as supporting terrorism. You really don't want to be classed as a terrorist. You can become an un-person very quickly, and it wouldn't be in there if they weren't planning on using it, even more extensively than they are now. The gestalt with computers in general is that computers allow anonymous and semi anonymous and easy communications for the average person. Police States don't like that.
This is REAL stuff in all our faces. You can't keep up with it now,laws, laws,laws and more new laws, daily. It's at the federal level and all the state levels, assaults against born-with rights, just being a normal person, are fully underway, it's not theoretical or tin foil hat. This article is an example of just another one. Add 'em all up. Pretty spooky.
Thanks for sending that letter, looking forward to see what they say, if you get a credible response.
+5 Informative?
Basicly, VPN gives you a secure and encrypted tunnel to some host (a VPN concentrator) somewhere on the net. All or some of your traffic will go through this tunnel and emerge at the concentrator, where it is sent to it's real destination.
The effect is that for the rest of the net, that traffic will appear to be coming from the concentrator (or the lan of the concentrator). This is useful for example for universities or companies that have some resources that are unsafe for the rest of the net, but is perfectly acceptable through an encrypted tunnel. Samba for example.
I haven't bothered to read the articles, since this sounds like complete and utter bollocks. But if they're targetting NAT too, then I guess that their thing is with "misdirection" through IP. Sounds to me like they would have to ban proxies etc. as well.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Ok you guys are just being a little to anal retentive with the words.
First off disguising origin. Anyone with half a brain knows you cannot get a location from an IP address. What they mean by it is IP Spoofing. If I'm a Comcast customer, I can't set my network to trick others into thinking I'm on Verizon, AOL/TW's, etc. If I am a Comcast customer, then I cannot disguise my IP to say otherwise. If the law needs my physical location, they can go through the legal channels and get it from Comcast.
CID blocking is iffy. I do not think this wouild be affected as it would force SBC and such to discontinue services like Privacy Manager. Second the biggest concern is telemarketing. The FCC is setting up the National Do Not Call list in July with enforcement in September. Why worry?
VPNs would be legal at this point because a) No state legislature is going to tell a corporation (Borders, the big 3 auto makers come to mind) that they can no longer use thier legit VPNs. And if they go after legit personal VPNs, one could claim discrimination based on that. Now if your ISP bans VPNs (which is thier right) then this law is moot anyways. b) Comcast et al do not ban VPNs to my knowledge nor do they ban use of NAT. I bet they love NAT because instead of charging you $10-15 for more IPs, they can charge you and others $40/mo for other individuals. Last I heard, Comcast only cares about multiple computers if they are hogging bandwidth or if non-customers are getting regular access (meaning sharing with neighbors via 802.11, etc.)
Can you think of any modern applications that this law is really targeting? Cell phone cloning and cable descramblers come to mind fast.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
Once the DMCA passed it became obvious that law makers actually ARE perpetrating the insane. Rights are destroyed when people hear about it happening and just hit the snooze button. It's happening right now.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Thus, making everyone subject to blackmail by the state--"obey our every command, or we'll find something bad you've done and punish you. Bow before Zod!"
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
I hope when you decide to become a lawyer that you'll do more for your client than skim the legislation and hope for the best, because your research skills SUCK.
...AND YOU DON'T THINK THESE BROAD DEFINITIONS DON'T INCLUDE MODEMS AND ROUTERS THAT HAVE NAT???
Note the following line in the ammendment.
(b) "Telecommunications access device" shall have the same meaning as in section 219a.
Here's the URL for Section 219a.
Section 219a
(b) "Telecommunications access device" means any of the following:
(i) Any instrument, device, card, plate, code, telephone number, account number, personal identification number, electronic serial number, mobile identification number, counterfeit number, or financial transaction device as defined in section 157m that alone or with another device can acquire, transmit, intercept, provide, receive, use, or otherwise facilitate the use, acquisition, interception, provision, reception, and transmission of any telecommunications service.
(ii) Any type of instrument, device, machine, equipment, technology, or software that facilitates telecommunications or which is capable of transmitting, acquiring, intercepting, decrypting, or receiving any telephonic, electronic, data, internet access, audio, video, microwave, or radio transmissions, signals, telecommunications, or services, including the receipt, acquisition, interception, transmission, retransmission, or decryption of all telecommunications, transmissions, signals, or services provided by or through any cable television, fiber optic, telephone, satellite, microwave, data transmission, radio, internet based or wireless distribution network, system, or facility, or any part, accessory, or component, including any computer circuit, security module, smart card, software, computer chip, pager, cellular telephone, personal communications device, transponder, receiver, modem, electronic mechanism or other component, accessory, or part of any other device that is capable of facilitating the interception, transmission, retransmission, decryption, acquisition, or reception of any telecommunications, transmissions, signals, or services.
Note that telephone numbers, PINs, and account numbers are considered telecommunication access devices.
What color is the sky in your world?
BTW, This has nothing to do with being anti-George Bush, anti-corporation, anti-war, or anti-republican. This is about EVERYDAY corruption that's been happening in this and EVERY OTHER country since the dawn of civilization that infects EVERY political party.
Grow up and stop being naive.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Ok, unless I'm missing something here (and I could be), how are they going to prove someone is using a VPN or firewall? The VPN should look like normal IP traffic between 2 machines. Same thing with the firewall. While you could interpret the proposed (or approved in MI's case) law as making these illegal, if they are setup correctly it should be undetectable. From the ISP's point of view, all traffic from that subscriber is coming from the firewall and they can't detect the protected machines.
It's funny...I went back and read the service agreement for my ISP and while it prohibits creating a LAN with "un-approved" equipment, it also states that it is the subscriber's responsiblity to secure the machines he/she places on the network. So, a firewall used to shield the subscriber from the ton of port scans received daily, but really shouldn't be there because the subscriber has 3 machines on the LAN? Seems like a paradox to me and pretty much impossible to prove. Not that it makes the law, written as it is, good or valid.
(1) A person shall not assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise an unlawful telecommunications access device or assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise a telecommunications device intending to use those devices or to allow the devices to be used to do any of the following or knowing or having reason to know that the devices are intended to be used to do any of the following:
Umm, doesn't this apply to the company manufacturing NAT and similar devices, rather than common citizens? If that's the case, Michigan would need to drag Linksys, Cisco, CompUSA, Circuit City, and about 10,000 other manufacturers and distributors into court.
_______
2B1ASK1
Doesn't pretty much every ISP include, in their terms of service, a disclaimer that they take no responsibility in any way for any data travelling over their network?
That could easily be interpreted as giving up their rights to deny permission, as it's not their permission to give, after they state that.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Wonder how many people here have ever even seen a rotary dial
Interesting note - I read a newspaper article a couple of years ago about a high school that put a rotary phone in the office, to prevent students from using the phone to call out..
Apparently they had no idea how to use one.
As I read it, and as others have pointed out, the new law makes an instant criminal out of (probably) 95%+ of the DSL and cable DSU users in the affected state. Anyone who uses a NAT-capable device (myself included) could be in a most uncomfortable position due to crap like this.
That's the bad news. The good news is that, given the sheer volume of people that already have NAT-type hookups, I don't see how this can possibly be effectively enforced. Even if the affected states try to make an example out of a few folks, it'll probably get appealed until doomsday.
I predict widespread 'civil disobedience' at first, followed by an effective court challenge that will overturn such legislative lunacy.
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
Security expert Steve Bellovin writes that he thinks this bill is intended by ISPs to fight off WiFi hotspots.
There has been a controversy in the WiFi arena about whether commercial WiFi services will take off or whether free access via "warchalking" etc is going to make it impossible to make a profit from commercial wireless access. Mostly it is the ISPs who are operating these commercial services (in partnerships with some national companies that set up the technology). And these same ISPs have anti-sharing clauses in their end-user contracts that are widely ignored.
This Michigan law, like the others that have been proposed, would make it arguably illegal to operate a free, public wireless access point without permission from your ISP. And if your ISP is trying to sell commercial wireless that you'd be competing with, you certainly won't get permission.
This law puts teeth in that prohibition. It could doom free wireless. A very big deal indeed.
Devices covered under this bill are devices intended to:
- Obtain a telecommunications service without paying for it.
- Conceal the existence, origin, or destination of any telecommunications service.
- Do anything with a telecommunications service without the consent of the service provider.
- Hijack a subscriber's telecom access device without his/her consent.
- Counterfeit telecommunications (e.g., cable descramblers).
- A fraudulent or deceptive scheme, pretense, method, or conspiracy, or any device or other means; e.g.:
- Using a fraudulent identification.
- The use of a telecom access device to violate this section by a non-subscriber to exchange anything of value to the subscriber to allow that unlawful use of the telecommunications access device.
What the bill criminalizes:- The assembly, development, manufacturing, possession, delivering, offer of delivery, or advertisement of the aforementioned devices.
- The modification of a device to make it an aforementioned device.
- The delivery, offer of delivery, or advertisement of plans, instructions, or materials for the manufacture, assembly, or development of the aforementioned devices.
Criminal penalties for violating this bill:- Up to 4 years of imprisonment.
- A fine of up to $2,000.
- Both 1 & 2.
- The violator must forfeit the device and receive no compensation.
- The violator must pay restitution.
Important notes:- Violation of this bill is a felony.
- Each aforementioned device constitutes a separate violation. In other words, a person may be sentenced an additional 4 years and $2,000 for each aforementioned device (s)he owns.
- This bill does not affect amateur services licensed by the FCC.
Definitions:- Telecommunications (service provider) -- any service lawfully provided for compensation to facilitate the origination, transmission, retransmission, emission, or reception of intelligible information over a telecommunications system
- Telecommunications access device -- basically, anything which can access, utilize, manipulate, etc a telecom system.
- Telecommunications system -- any system, network, or facility owned or operated by a telecommunications service provider
Those are all defined in section 219a of Michigan's Penal Code. I went to Michican's home-page, and searched for 219a. Unfortunately, only the proposed wording of the bill was offered, and the final bill's language was not. So I had to go to LexisNexis. What a scam to privitive public information. So, this bill covers internet services, telephone services, TV-services, satellite services, an so on and so forth. Since it covers retransmission, it would criminalize the use of WiFi, creating an anti-social community (as RMS says), where helping your neighbor is frowned upon. Even though you are presumably paying for 24-7 full-time use of your broadband, you aren't permitted to use it 24-7 if that means letting other people access your system and use it. Furthermore, you could get up to 4 years in jail for this. Child molesters sometimes don't get 4 years in jail. Additionally, each subsequent violation (e.g., device owned) would get you an additional 4 years if the judge decided that you were to serve the sentences consecutively. This may also criminalize such things as TiVo, since they effectively re-transmit (time-shifting) programmed scheduling to the user at a later time, removing commercials, and do not have the TSP's approval.social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I have an article on illegal activities under this law at: http://www.stearns.org/doc/networking-felony.curre nt.html.
Mason, Buildkernel and more: http://www.stearns.org/
So if a telemarketer keeps their number from showing up on your CallerID screen you can have them arrested as a terrorist. Cool.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
You didn't happen to miss the myriad of shootings that happened over the past few years, did you? A disgruntled student knows when taking a firearm into school that there is a 100% guarantee that nobody else in that building has access to a firearm. It's like shooting fish in a barrel!
Let a few teachers pack a gun under their shirt, or on their ankle. We're talking about college educated people who have decided to pick a career to help children rise to their full potential here, not Joe Blow off the street. School's a friggen danger zone. Some nut job wants to pop a few children in the head, where's he gonna go? A school! You're guaranteed to have to wait for the police to get there before you can get taken down. You'd have time to reload your pistol over and over again as you mowed them all down.
I think we should allow guns in school for the safety of the children. Personally, any gun-free zone is a horribly unsafe place if you ask me. If you disagree I suggest you slap a sign in your front yard saying, "This is a gun free zone!". If any would-be criminals are casing for a place to rob, or murder, it's probably going to be yours.
Think about the children!
This is going to make a number of RFC's illegal...
How entertaining.
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
And if i was not a slashdot reader, I would not know about this law! The typical lets-not-tell-them-so-they-will-be-screwed-when-we -catch-them mentality. Anyway, I thought that this link might be a good place for fellow Michigan slashdotters to look at. Remember the article on counting machines behind a NAT ? Well, at least counter-inteligence would be less likely to suspect you/me/user as a mulit-machine law breaker.
I guess I really don't care, now do I? Come and find me if you really care that much!
This useless space for sale, inquire at front desk.